Comments on: Stuff and nonsense http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-161049 Matt Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:34:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-161049 Shawn, While it's true that some illegal immigrants damage the "peace and order" of some parts of the country, it's quite obviously not the case that the mere act of being in a country with out proper documentation is in any meaningful sense a violation of peace and order. And, though I'm guilty of it above as well, it's worth noting that "illegal immigrant" is a popular but not legal or offical term in the US at least. The legal terms are things like "entered without inspection" or "excludable" or "inadmissable". People regularly driving over the speed limits certainly do more to damage the safety and order of the country and is a more clearly illegal act, but there's little outrage over that. Why? Becuase _we_ drive to fast, while it's those swarthy others who are illegal immigrants. Shawn,
While it’s true that some illegal immigrants damage the “peace and order” of some parts of the country, it’s quite obviously not the case that the mere act of being in a country with out proper documentation is in any meaningful sense a violation of peace and order. And, though I’m guilty of it above as well, it’s worth noting that “illegal immigrant” is a popular but not legal or offical term in the US at least. The legal terms are things like “entered without inspection” or “excludable” or “inadmissable”. People regularly driving over the speed limits certainly do more to damage the safety and order of the country and is a more clearly illegal act, but there’s little outrage over that. Why? Becuase we drive to fast, while it’s those swarthy others who are illegal immigrants.

]]> By: Shawn http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-161007 Shawn Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:41:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-161007 Illegal immigrants violate the liberty of the citizens of the countries they invade by entering illegally in the first place. That on its own is a violation of my rights as a citizen. As a citizen, I pay taxes to live in a nation with at least some peace and order. The word "illegal" IS a moral judgement, and a good one. Breaking the laws of a country is immoral. Illegal immigrants violate the liberty of the citizens of the countries they invade by entering illegally in the first place. That on its own is a violation of my rights as a citizen. As a citizen, I pay taxes to live in a nation with at least some peace and order.

The word “illegal” IS a moral judgement, and a good one. Breaking the laws of a country is immoral.

]]> By: roger http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160867 roger Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:50:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160867 Soru finally proposes a political policy I can get behind! Soru finally proposes a political policy I can get behind!

]]> By: Bob B http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160863 Bob B Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:21:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160863 Anyone for more helpings snake oil? The current continuing debate in Britain about appropriate punishments for violent crimes is really secondary to the prior and increasingly urgent consideration of actually catching and convicting perpetrators. The facts are: "An investigation shows that conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have been in freefall since Labour came to power in 1997 and are now well below 10 per cent. The chronically low figures for convictions come at the same time as reports that violent crime is increasing." http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html "Ten years after Tony Blair famously pledged that Labour in power would be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', an Observer investigation reveals that conviction rates - the percentage of recorded offences that result in a guilty finding in court - have dramatically decreased. Robbers, rapists, other sex offenders and attackers who inflict life-threatening injuries are committing many more crimes, and have become much more likely to get away with them than when Labour was elected in 1997. Of the categories Straw identified, only burglary has fallen. Its conviction rate has increased - by 0.5 per cent." http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1784692,00.html "Robberies in England and Wales rose by 11% between July and September last year [2005], with overall violent crime up 4%, Home Office figures show. The rise came after robberies jumped 4% in the previous quarter following the ending of a government scheme to target the problem of street crime. Total recorded crimes fell 1% to 1.37m incidents compared with the same period a year ago, and burglaries were lower." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4648042.stm "Conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have fallen to below 10% in the years since Labour came to power, while incidences of offences like serious wounding and rape have risen, reported The Observer. "The paper said that analysis of Home Office figures indicated that only 9.7% of serious woundings reported to police resulted in a conviction, while for robberies the figure is 8.9% and for rape just 5.5%." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5850760,00.html Anyone for more helpings snake oil?

The current continuing debate in Britain about appropriate punishments for violent crimes is really secondary to the prior and increasingly urgent consideration of actually catching and convicting perpetrators. The facts are:

“An investigation shows that conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have been in freefall since Labour came to power in 1997 and are now well below 10 per cent. The chronically low figures for convictions come at the same time as reports that violent crime is increasing.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html

“Ten years after Tony Blair famously pledged that Labour in power would be ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’, an Observer investigation reveals that conviction rates – the percentage of recorded offences that result in a guilty finding in court – have dramatically decreased. Robbers, rapists, other sex offenders and attackers who inflict life-threatening injuries are committing many more crimes, and have become much more likely to get away with them than when Labour was elected in 1997. Of the categories Straw identified, only burglary has fallen. Its conviction rate has increased – by 0.5 per cent.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1784692,00.html

“Robberies in England and Wales rose by 11% between July and September last year [2005], with overall violent crime up 4%, Home Office figures show. The rise came after robberies jumped 4% in the previous quarter following the ending of a government scheme to target the problem of street crime. Total recorded crimes fell 1% to 1.37m incidents compared with the same period a year ago, and burglaries were lower.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4648042.stm

“Conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have fallen to below 10% in the years since Labour came to power, while incidences of offences like serious wounding and rape have risen, reported The Observer.

“The paper said that analysis of Home Office figures indicated that only 9.7% of serious woundings reported to police resulted in a conviction, while for robberies the figure is 8.9% and for rape just 5.5%.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5850760,00.html

]]> By: Brett Bellmore http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160858 Brett Bellmore Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:35:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160858 Hey, whether they'd need to obtain fake documents if they were here legally is irrelevant to the question of whether, being here <i>illegally</i>, their identity thefts and other allied crimes injure anyone. Hey, whether they’d need to obtain fake documents if they were here legally is irrelevant to the question of whether, being here illegally, their identity thefts and other allied crimes injure anyone.

]]> By: nick s http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160811 nick s Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:47:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160811 <i>However, the ones who stick around generall commit such offenses as identity theft, in the course of obtaining fake documents.</i> But what if they need them simply in order to buy guns, Brett? Does that make it okay? And does anyone know if the Daily Mail crew has stopped drinking in establishments with Australian bar staff? However, the ones who stick around generall commit such offenses as identity theft, in the course of obtaining fake documents.

But what if they need them simply in order to buy guns, Brett? Does that make it okay?

And does anyone know if the Daily Mail crew has stopped drinking in establishments with Australian bar staff?

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160801 Matt Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:56:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160801 Immigrants in the US have the burden of proving that they have entered at an approved boarder crossing and have presented themselves for inspection. And of course, as I've said, if you didn't do this you're an illegal immigrant whether anyone every finds out or not. Immigrants in the US have the burden of proving that they have entered at an approved boarder crossing and have presented themselves for inspection. And of course, as I’ve said, if you didn’t do this you’re an illegal immigrant whether anyone every finds out or not.

]]> By: soru http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160793 soru Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:48:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160793 A specific named person is innocent until proved guilty, but not a hypothetical person, a representative of a class. Otherwise you could completely eliminate all crime by sacking all the policemen and judges. If noone was ever proven guilty, everyone would be innocent, consequently noone could have comitted a crime. A specific named person is innocent until proved guilty, but not a hypothetical person, a representative of a class.

Otherwise you could completely eliminate all crime by sacking all the policemen and judges. If noone was ever proven guilty, everyone would be innocent, consequently noone could have comitted a crime.

]]> By: Cryptic Ned http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160792 Cryptic Ned Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:40:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160792 I don't understand your point, Steven Poole. If you immigrate illegally, you're an illegal immigrant. If you are a person whose only way to immigrate is illegally, then you will be an illegal immigrant at the point when you choose to immigrate. The word "illegal" doesn't imply any moral judgment. I don’t understand your point, Steven Poole. If you immigrate illegally, you’re an illegal immigrant. If you are a person whose only way to immigrate is illegally, then you will be an illegal immigrant at the point when you choose to immigrate.

The word “illegal” doesn’t imply any moral judgment.

]]> By: Steven Poole http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160791 Steven Poole Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:37:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160791 Matt, In the UK we have a tradition of presumed innocence, and a <i>legal</i> fact does not exist until determined by a court. Is it otherwise in the US? Matt,
In the UK we have a tradition of presumed innocence, and a legal fact does not exist until determined by a court. Is it otherwise in the US?

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160789 Matt Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:25:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160789 Steven, I guess I'd disagree. Under US law someone who enters w/o inspection is an illegal immigrant, even if a form of relief is granted later. It's a fact of the matter before any process whether one entered at a boarder crossing and presented one's self for inspection. If you didn't do this, you are an illegal immigrant even if you later file a successful asylum claim or get some other form of relief. This may sound nasty but it's just how the law is here. It does show that one can be an illegal immigrant and not hurt anyone, though. We may need some process to determine whether one entered without inspection, but that's purely an epistemic question, and under US law the burden to show that one presented one's self for inspection is on the immigrant as well. Steven,
I guess I’d disagree. Under US law someone who enters w/o inspection is an illegal immigrant, even if a form of relief is granted later. It’s a fact of the matter before any process whether one entered at a boarder crossing and presented one’s self for inspection. If you didn’t do this, you are an illegal immigrant even if you later file a successful asylum claim or get some other form of relief. This may sound nasty but it’s just how the law is here. It does show that one can be an illegal immigrant and not hurt anyone, though. We may need some process to determine whether one entered without inspection, but that’s purely an epistemic question, and under US law the burden to show that one presented one’s self for inspection is on the immigrant as well.

]]> By: Steven Poole http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160788 Steven Poole Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:20:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160788 Matt/shelby: Calling a human being "illegal" before due process of law has determined that any of their <i>actions</i> (rather than their <i>person</i>) is illegal is prejudicial. Speaking of "illegal immigrants" in the abstract plural, as Blair does, is one with the kind of rhetoric that had Blunkett talking about foreigners "swamping" schools etc. It is not quite as bad, perhaps, as "bogus asylum seekers", but it is on the same track, and clearly has the same kind of <i>Daily Mail</i>-appeasing purpose (substitute your favourite reactionary US newspaper if wished). Matt/shelby:
Calling a human being “illegal” before due process of law has determined that any of their actions (rather than their person) is illegal is prejudicial. Speaking of “illegal immigrants” in the abstract plural, as Blair does, is one with the kind of rhetoric that had Blunkett talking about foreigners “swamping” schools etc. It is not quite as bad, perhaps, as “bogus asylum seekers”, but it is on the same track, and clearly has the same kind of Daily Mail-appeasing purpose (substitute your favourite reactionary US newspaper if wished).

]]> By: Alan Bostick http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160780 Alan Bostick Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:58:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160780 And why do they need fake documents? Because they are illegal! Would they need fake documents if they weren't illegal immigrants, if, say, the laws that arbitrarily designated them as illegal weren't on the books. I rather think not. And why do they need fake documents? Because they are illegal! Would they need fake documents if they weren’t illegal immigrants, if, say, the laws that arbitrarily designated them as illegal weren’t on the books. I rather think not.

]]> By: Brett Bellmore http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160775 Brett Bellmore Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:44:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160775 I suppose illegal immigrants don't do much to reduce liberty if they just saunter across the border, camp out in the middle of nowhere, and then go back. However, the ones who stick around generall commit such offenses as identity theft, in the course of obtaining fake documents. I suppose illegal immigrants don’t do much to reduce liberty if they just saunter across the border, camp out in the middle of nowhere, and then go back. However, the ones who stick around generall commit such offenses as identity theft, in the course of obtaining fake documents.

]]> By: Cryptic Ned http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-160774 Cryptic Ned Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:43:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/23/stuff-and-nonsense/#comment-160774 I would like to know if <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a> makes any sense. It seems to be written by the world's most reactionary stick-in-the-mud, but I do think he has a point in that the jail sentences for violent crimes are ludicrously short. Not that putting someone in jail does any good to society except as a deterrent...but there doesn't seem to be enough of a deterrent for what he describes. I would like to know if this article makes any sense. It seems to be written by the world’s most reactionary stick-in-the-mud, but I do think he has a point in that the jail sentences for violent crimes are ludicrously short.

Not that putting someone in jail does any good to society except as a deterrent…but there doesn’t seem to be enough of a deterrent for what he describes.

]]>